The discussion's gone on a bit since this but it seems to have gone largely unanswered so I'll throw in my two cents. My idea of the most humane way to kill someone, within the bounds of a legal system, is to provide options. It follows the same logic as a last meal, people like to have some say in their last worldly experience. The convict's already dealing with their impending death, why add in the trouble of worring about a firing squad missing, or lasting 15 minutes in a gas chamber? The second bird killed with this stone is not having to declare any single method as most humane and constantly deal with complaints. But the most humane change, at least to the US system, isn't actually about how you kill the person. It's about speeding up the horrible Death Row. It's fundamentally not very hard to off someone, particularly someone held in strict custody. Having to spend years in prison waiting for your impending death is not only cruel but conflicts with the purpose of the death penalty. I believe it was Kayin who posted earlier about the death penalty being a means of putting down a rabid dog. A prison sentence is a punishment, and (excluding life sentences) a chance to rehabilitate. The death penalty isn't a punishment, it's not just a step above a life sentence on a linear scale. It's a separate action made by the government to permanently remove a threat to its people, it's not about revenge or punishing the criminal. That's why it's reserved not just for particularly horrible acts, but for people who are deemed unable to ever peacefully fit in society. Killing those sentenced with the death penalty should therefore be done as quickly and efficiently as possible, though I believe a minimum waiting time is reasonable to allow for any new evidence that may turn up in a year or so. It's somewhat off topic, but I also believe that life in prison is somewhat redundant in such a system. If the intention is to never let the person back into society then isn't it overlapping with the death sentence? And if prison is meant to be a time to teach people the error of their ways then it's pointless as they'll never have a chance to spend their new life in freedom. It's punishment, plain and simple. The amount of cases where only punishment is deserved is, in my opinion, not equal to the relatively large number of life sentences given.
you really are foul, good job you're not a parent. 2.) is cold blooded murder, seeing as you are religious you will burn in hell. i personally believe that two wrongs don't make a right. Instances where i would kill are, if to protect my babies or myself from someone that was trying to harm them or myself, so self defence in the moment. i never thought i'd agree to something you posted, actually i think he is beyond any help.
All the best compliments are the back-handed ones. Thanks Was it the whole 'rape' joke that got out of hand in the guess the film thread that tarnished my image for you, or is it just what I write in general... just asking.
no you called me a trollop what ever gave you that idea i'll never know hint, sometimes i like to test moral boundaries, especially on the internet where it is safe to do so.
